colonists out of a total of 200 in the area were detained.7 Despite the penalties imposed, the colonists have returned to the Reserve and continued their illegal activities. According to the petitioners, the complaints filed with the Office of the Attorney General are still at the enquiry stage and no one has yet been investigated or apprehended. The petitioners argue that as a result of the ineffectiveness of the measures taken by the State, the Kuna held peaceful protests on October 23 and 24, 2007, which were harshly put down by the police, which violently entered the Kuna Reserve and arrested 95 indigenous demonstrators.8 These latter developments, according to the petitioners, are evidence of the State’s continuing unwillingness to meet the alleged victims’ demands for protection of their land. B. The State 19. According to the State, the construction of the Bayano hydroelectric plant was one of a number of government projects implemented in order to supply the Panamanian State with electricity and avoid dependence on costly imported energy. The State points out that the project was carried out in order to meet this demand for energy, without disregarding the specific rights of the communities that lived in that region. 20. The State holds that the construction of the Bayano hydroelectric plant was preceded by technical studies with a view to limiting its adverse impact. Furthermore, agreements were reached with the indigenous Kuna and Emberá over their relocation and the conditions of their resettlement. Thus, after the Bayano dam was built, the indigenous lands were compensated for with other nearby lands, which were declared inalienable and exclusively for indigenous use by Decree No. 123 of May 8, 1969. The State argues that the petitioners accepted these terms, which means that there was no forcible relocation. 21. The State asserts that over the years, since the decision was made to build the Bayano hydroelectric plant, it has engaged in constant and periodic conversations with the members of the Kuna and Emberá peoples, endeavoring at all times, that through various agreements and laws passed, it ensures the full integrity of their culture and absolute respect for their inalienable rights and for the ecological system in which these different cultures live. As an example of the responses provided for the needs of the Kuna, the State cites the creation of the Kuna of Madungandí Reserve through Law 24 of January 12, 1996, which recognizes the boundaries of the Kuna territory and restricts the activities of colonists.9 It also recognizes the compensation granted through Cabinet Decree 156 of 1971. 22. As regards the Emberá, the State indicates that a study for the legalization of their lands was initiated and is being carried out jointly with other Emberá and Wounaan communities. To that end, a Joint Government-Community Committee has been created to prepare a final draft for a collective land law. In this way, the government has met its obligations under the agreements with those communities. 23. With respect to compensation of the alleged victims, the State asserts that payments were made to the indigenous peoples from 1974 to 1978 by the Corporation for the Comprehensive Development of the Bayano Region,10 a state entity in charge of compensation matters. The State maintains that it has remained in permanent communication with the authorities of the Brief submitted by the petitioners on November 13, 2007, in connection with the request to the Commission for precautionary measures. 8 Ibidem. 9 The State points out that Article 21 of Law 24 of 1996 refers to an agreement signed by the colonists and the indigenous peoples, which recognizes the colonists who were already living on lands that became part of the Madungandí Reserve. The colonists may remain on those lands under the following conditions: they shall not expand their cultivated land beyond its current area; the lands of which they have usufruct shall not be granted in concession, exchanged with, or sold to third parties on pain of reversion of the lands to the Reserve. The State holds that Article 21 is the legal foundation of the agreement reached between the Kuna and the colonists and that it guarantees the patrimony of the Reserve and ensures harmonious coexistence between farmers and indigenous peoples. 10 Brief of the State submitted on July 2, 2001, p.6. The State said that a total of $1,372,000 had been paid in compensation and housing payments. 7 4